Monday Open Thread

From a balmy, perfect 80 degrees in Key West to an icy, freezing 7 degrees in Denver -- pure culture shock. I'll be back to blogging soon, thanks to Big Tent Democrat for keeping the site running while I was gone.

To tide you over, and given the icy roads, here's a primer I wrote on "What to do if I Get in an Accident: [More...]re's the ACLU's Know Your Rights.

In the meantime, here's an open thread, all topics welcome. And some reminders about what to do if you get n a fender-bender or stopped by the police: [More...]

Stop. If you are involved in an accident, you must stop and provide information to others involved in the accident. Leaving the scene of an accident is a serious offense which can result in the suspension of your driver’s licenseand potential jail time.

Alert other drivers that an accident has occurred. Turn on your emergency signals or use another means to let people know that there has been an accident.

Exchange information with other drivers. If there are no injuries, exchange information such as your name, address, license plate number, driver’s license number, and insurance information with other drivers involved in the accident. Write down the names, addresses, and phone numbers of anyone who witnessed the accident. Write down details regarding the accident, such as the location, weather conditions, and visibility. Write down the names and badge numbers of all police officers at the scene. Ask the investigating officer how to obtain a copy of the police report.

Do not sign any document unless it is for the police or your insurance agent.

Take pictures of the accident scene. Keep a camera in your glove compartment to record the accident or use a cell phone camera.

Notify your insurance agent immediately. Ask them to file an operator’s crash report (SR21 form). It is your responsibility to make sure this report is filed within 10 days after the accident.

And the top ten things to remember when talking to a police officer about any incident.

Remain calm and be polite.

You have the right to remain silent. Use it. While in some states you must provide your name when asked, you do not have to answer any questions. Non-citizens generally have the same rights as citizens when stopped inside the U.S. At the border, different rules may apply.

Anything you say to a police officer can and likely will be used against you and others. While it is a crime to knowingly lie to a law nforcement officer, it is not a crime to refuse to answer questions before consulting with a lawyer.

. If contacted by phone or at work and asked to submit to an interview about a potential crime, you may refuse.You should speak with a lawyer before agreeing to any interviews.

If you are pulled over for a traffic offense, you need only provide your driver’s license, registration and proof of insurance. Neither you nor any passengers in your vehicle have to answer questions about your itinerary or anything else. Nor do you have to consent to a search of your vehicle. Once your documents have been returned, politely ask if you are free to leave. If you are, calmly do so. If you are not, ask for a lawyer and refuse to answer any questions until he arrives. If he can't make it, set up an appointment (and if youor lawyer advises against an interview, follow her advice.

If detained or arrested, ask for a lawyer and refuse to answer questions without one present. If you can’t afford a lawyer, one will be provided to you. You may invoke your right to remain silent at any time, even if you have already answered some questions. If you are turned over to another officer, repeat your request for a lawyer and intent to remain silent * Do not consent to a search of your person, your car or your home. Your refusal to consent does not provide police with grounds for a search. Do not agree to a canine search (even though they may do it anyway.)

Do not sign any documents giving up your rights. Do not sign any document before reading it or if you do not understand it.

Ask for and write down, the name and badge number, agency and telephone number of any law enforcement officer contacting you.

When the contact has concluded, as soon as possible after you leave,write down everything you remember about it, including the order of events and questions asked and your responses, if any.

(These are not intended as a substitute for legal advice. To me, they are just good common sense.)

I've been wondering for about ten years why when I look in the mirror while shaving in the morning that I've been seeing more and more of lines and deep folds on my face and an increasing aged look.

I think I've finally figured it out.

It's the corporations.

Not only can't they make cars like they used to, or make mortgages and titles like they used to, and certainly can't make populist politicians like they used to, and they've pretty much given up making social safety nets worth a damn anymore....

....it's become obvious now, to me at least, that the mirror manufacturers are turning out a really shoddy product the past ten years.

Anyone else noticed this? Is it intentional? Maybe they're in cahoots with the AMA now?

that they sell toothbrushes and toothpaste that destroy your teeth. Eye drops that cause cataracts. And beverages that cause shrinkage of the bladder to the point that the first thing you want to know when you go to a new place is "Where's the bathroom?"

"Part of pulling the country toward progressive values requires the Democratic Party winning of course. This should go without saying as central to the Daily Kos ethos (one I share.)"

"Part of pulling the country toward progressive values requires the Democratic Party winning of course."

"Between OFA, Move On, the DNC, DCCC, the DSCC, the DGA and all the other D electoral organizations, there seems to be plenty of folks working on the "More." There seems to be less focus on the "Better."

As of fact, I found myself agreeing with almost all of it. Didn't hit a snag until the end:

I think that that could be the case in many situations but in others it won't be, and on the "more" side of things and not the "better" side, we should be careful to create a safe place in the party for those who cannot win with a hard progressive agenda.

Regardless, probably the best BTD columns I have read in a long time and well worth a look if it is not cross posted at some point. Fair and balanced and difficult to argue with almost any of it from my perspective.

nationally or in most states, locally, with a hard progressive agenda across the board. So your point is that they should lose but do it in high style.

The independents and moderates are deciding national elections and have a huge sway in local elections and they don't like either extreme.

We can't pretend that (a) they have no power, (b) they will magically embrace hard progressive positions just because we yell more loudly and (c) that a hard progressive position in many instances has the effect of energizing the conservative base.

is something that I don't think people understand. I mean what exactly has come out of Obama winning in '08? Repeal of DADT and Supreme court appointments? The supreme court isn't even enough for me anymore.

isn't going to change the Supreme Court because he lacks the gumption to do it. With the GOP ONLY controlling the house he's been giving them 98% of what they want. With a Republican senate, Obama will not even nominate a moderate I'm willing to bet. It will be "well this was the best I could do and this particular conservative isn't as bad as it could have been" is what I would expect to hear.

The usual minority foursome on the Supreme Court were nominated by Democrats (Clinton's Ginsberg & Breyer; Obama's Sotomayor & Kagan.) By all accounts, most liberals as well as moderates would be proud of the positions they have taken in general. The five Repub Justices (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and--more often than not in opinions--Kennedy) typically write or concur in the kind of opinions that most, if not all, liberals would disagree with or differ with strongly.

President Obama's nominations to the Court are in line with liberal/moderate thinking & reflect the best of that thinking. Republican Presidents have given us the opposite in the past 25 years.

There most certainly is a significant difference.
(Justice Scalia was named by the first Bush. That was a long time ago...a long timeline.)

I think honestly they aren't, and the term "hard progressive" seems unnecessarily combative.

Are there states where there is no way a candidate who makes a progressive argument could win? Sure. But I don't think that's most states. I don't even think it's most purple states. I think in a lot of places, Democrats could win more if they were more progressive. Not just in places like Connecticut and Massachusetts, but also in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania. Let's not forget, the same state that gave us Michele Bachmann also gave us Al Franken. There is a lesson there.

party doesn't understand is that strong beats weak every time. If people only agree with a candidate 20% but they believe that said candidate is going to fight for that 20% they will more than likely vote for that person instead of the one that they agree with 80% who is perceived as weak because they don't think they'll even get 20% from them.

I mentioned it because I find it telling. I think you are talking about a "hard" progressive as someone who is very rigid. "I am right, you are wrong, no compromise". Like a barney frank, for example. Which is fine when most of the electorate agrees with you already. What I, and I think bystanders is talking about is someone persuasive. Someone who can stand up and explain to people how the values they already hold are in line with progressive ideals.

In Colorado--on the statewide level and in a few Congressional Districts (e.g., 3rd, 4th, & 7th--the candidates who successfully emerge from pitched-political battles are those who run on/portray themselves as "moderate-ish." The Senate races that Democrats have won in-say, the last 40 years--have cast the Democrat as the centrist with (and this is important in this state) a degree of populism (ala the Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer.) Additionally: Environmentalism is a plus politically in this state--@about the slightly left of center range (and in Vermont, Montana, California, as well per Democratic national pollster Celinda Lake.)

With the degree of populism & environmental awareness, however, it has long been the norm to respect what-might-best-be-called the somewhat fiscally conservative attributes of the populace. Farmers on the eastern plains (they loved Gov. Romer during the 90s), ranchers & sorta rugged individualists of the west slope (they accepted Dem John Salazar as Cong. from the 3rd Congressional) and small business people & surburbanites of the 4th and 7th (they accepted Cong. Betsy Markey for awhile until they got too concerned that Obama & Pelosi were too liberal; they still accept the Dem business-banker-with developer ties Perlmutter in the exurbs, suburbs of the 7th.) Briefhand on the Senate: Sen. Michael Bennet eked at the narrowest of victories--a fraction of 1%--in 2010 because he concentrated on the center, reached out to women voters (esp. in the suburbs) & had the great fortune of running against an "immoderate" Repub from the Tea Party types, Ken Buck. (Prior to Bennet, we had Sen. Ken Salazar--like his brother rancher from the fruitful Colorado southern valleys--a natural fit for our State.

Speaking only about "purple states" and transitional areas: My suggestion is that honey gets a lot more than vinegar OR Don't get too far out in front of your would-be constituents. These may be the areas, once identified, where all or nothing is a loser...and incremental strategies may get Progressives more each year than hard-lines might produce in a lifetime. The key: Calibrate the components--demographically & regional interest areas--of each state; and, include that characterization in the selection of a viable candidate.

as well I know from formerly living in one for many decades. They are part red, part blue.

And the parts shift -- especially in this economy, from what I'm seeing -- dependent upon issues from election to election, from part of the state to another part, etc.

So there are no simple answers for all purple states or even for any purple states. From what I witnessed, the "hard progressive" platform, previously known as the Democratic Party platform, would work well with a sufficient number of voters in some purple states, while mealy-mouthed centrism could just keep too many voters home.

This is where I found fault with the Democratic Party (and other parties, movements, etc.) in not getting boots on the ground, only doing so in a big city in such states but not in other areas, not listening to the locals, etc.

One size simply will not fit all, not all parts of such states and not in all elections. Constant listening -- not quite the same as constant polling, when polls are poorly designed with questions that do not elicit localized answers -- is necessary. (Example: The national polls that ask if residents are registered as Republican or Democratic in states that do not require such partisan registration.)

of humans wandered over a hill and saw another group. The rational, common sensical, and basically decent reaction would have been to join together to improve both groups' situation, and I'm sure a few folks on both sides had that thought.

"Really poor children, in really poor neighborhoods, have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works, so they have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day; they have no habit of "I do this and you give me cash," unless it is illegal."

That's the guy that we should let win because we want to prove a point? We want to give a guy who proudly states that the poor are lazy criminals as part of his speech on repealing child labor laws the power over both congress and the white house because our democrats aren't as progressive as we want them to be?

That just can't right in my mind. I respect your opinion, but dang man. I just think that one has to be wrong.

I want to do X. They want to do Y. I am trying to find a middle ground that won't be terrible while at the same time trying to get things done, but they are more concerned with winning than they are finding compromises. If you do not like the exteremists, vote for me because I am the only one trying in good faith to make things work.

wondering if you truly are an Obama supporter. Because the man you describe as worthy of my precious vote has nothing to recommend him at all. He's weak with a squishy enough moral center that a token "win" means more than the results of that "win" on the bulk those affected. A few benefit and so rest of you? Stop whining.

Vote for me if you don't like that guy. And if you do like that guy, well heck I'll work hard to accommodate and compromise with him.

the problem is not that Obama gets the middle ground but that he starts from the middle ground and then concedes EVERYTHING. He has let the GOP set the agenda. I'm beginning to wonder if before the election he'll embrace Newt's child labor stance.

That "bipartisanship" thing.... So, many people are always saying before the elections that they "just want people to work together" etc. etc. for the good of the country. Most people (especially Independents) like the WORD "bipartisanship" and like the IDEA of it. IMO, that is a key reason that Dems like Obama have reinforced that & defined himself that way (before, in 2008, he could be defined as one of those hardball politicians from Chicago.)

But, as you have often said, Ga6thDem, the word gets nowhere. Except a strange two things have happened: Most under-the-polls findings show that people believe that it is the Repubs that are not trying not seeking solutions with the Dems and being resistant too much and most polls likewise find a much higher degree of trust in Obama trying to look out for their values. What difference does that make? It is initially not tangential...it plays in ultimately in the trust department when there is a named, but not-really-known Repub opponent. To me, that is what this was always about as we watched the frustrating, circular economic struggles in DC (because hardball was not going to move the numbers to House votes or Senate votes in today's polarization; but, the gradual building of good will that is not top-line apparent yet, was something that the WH could do.)

they are hideous, no question - what we have on the so-called "our" side of the aisle, is an administration that won't, apparently, get behind substantive and desperately needed policy/legislation to do write down mortgages on homes that are severely underwater, because there's a chance someone who doesn't "deserve" it will benefit.

Meanwhile, the housing market continues to pretty much suck, properties are being abandoned, tumbleweed is blowing down the streets of whole neighborhoods...but, heaven forfend some "irresponsible" person gets a break along with the millions of "deserving" borrowers.

We must maintain some standards, right?

And "our" guy is considering reneging on the birth control provision of ACA in a nod to the Catholic Church, I've seen no signs of slowdown on this whole need for "austerity," I don't feel like the safety net programs are actually safe, the intrusion into people's lives is getting worse, no one from Wall Street has been held accountable, Joe Biden went to Iraq to plead for the US to be allowed to have more than a diplomatic presence, "our" Justice Department is hell-bent to punish media and others for revealing what's really going on in the most transparent administration ever...and the list goes on.

I think the Republicans are as crazy as bedbugs, but at least they don't hide their agenda - they tell you what they want to do, and then do it. I mean, when's the last time we had a Republican talk the conservative talk, and push a progressive agenda in the background? When's the last time a Republican ignored the demands of his or her base and told them to pound sand?

"Our" guy, on the other hand, lulls Democrats to inattention and complacency with his more progressive rhetoric, which enables him to go ahead with his more conservative agenda in the background. In my opinion - that's way, way harder to fight against, as we've clearly seen. We have loyal Dem after loyal Dem who railed and pounded on desks and wrote sternly-worded letters to those involved in the execrable policies of the Bush administration, who have apparently no ability to see that they are now cheerleading for some of those same policies now that those policies are coming out of a so-called Democratic administration. And those who actually can see this are routinely ignored by the media and can get little or no traction. Overall, there's still some obligatory noise, but no follow-through - and I guess you want us to act the same way: vent if we must, but, in the end, do the good, Democratic thing and vote for people who aren't serving our interests. Let's make sure we never get anyone good by continuing to vote for crap.

Both parties are headed to the same place; one may be driving faster than the other, but, really, when all roads lead to hell anyway, how stupid are we to think that really, slower is so much better?

from a two faced monster called the two party system that oscillates back and forth promising promises to half the people while screwing the other half.

And people still believe they have a choice, or that one face is better than the other, while the two faces laugh and work together putting on the show, while collecting bribes from their real constituents who are very happy with them both.

1. The problem with your statement is that half the people think the progressives are the ones making promises to half the people and screwing the other half. Your arguments make complete sense in a country where everyone believes that the GOP is screwing everyone over but about half the country believes that the GOP is the last line of defense between America and full socialism. The commentary has to acknowledge that the are probably a group of people on a conservative blog engaged in an identical conversation about whether the GOP should tolerate Romney for the sake of saving the country or go with principles and nominate Newt or Perry, who will ultimately lose.

My take: I hope you conservative equivalent wins the day and they go with fighting the good fight over pragmatism.

Because, as BTD states well, the best thing progressives can do for progressive policy is elect democrats, even if they are moderate.

And I happen to disagree with BTD on that, even though for an extreme centrist he's not a bad guy. I even kind of like him after knowing him for years.

You can keep trying to sell the two party scam all you want, while you wonder and can't figure out why there are more and more people in the streets who have moved beyond it. Have fun in your frustration.

Great. It'll be good to have you on board the next time someone says that Obama tricked anyone.

Obama should own his record. It's a historic one and will only grow in stature with time. MOst of his accomplishments do not fit into the convenient new cycle. For example, if he was smashingly successful in the tax extension battle, got double the stimulus and won the battle of the deficit this summer smashingly, people would still remember the repeal of DADT, ACA, two female supreme court justices, pulling troops from Iraq killing Osama and a host of other issues more.

That's what is always odd to me about people who say Obama has been a huge failure. Almost everything referenced is only relevant short term (3-5 years tops) while his signature issues will impact generations.

If you think anyone 50 years from now will care about the stimulus battle or the December battle over taxes, you've really lost perspective.

The right doesn't think Reagan is a king for agreeing to tax increases all over the place, they adore him because of what he did on the lasting issues. Obama is excelling on those types of initiatives.

By the way, we just transferred Camp Victory to the Iraqis. No Mission Accomplished flags. No overblown ceremonies. He just did it and kept moving.

you & i are not "on board" the same ship - i am a longtime left-leaning (now former) Democrat, whereas your stated positions & sympathies tell me that you are something else

tax policy is fundamental in determining what kind of country the United States is going to be - i think it quite likely that 50 years from now Americans will remember Obama's failures on tax policy & on other fronts where his prevailing concern was to appease b@tsh!t crazy Republicans & advance the interests of Wall Street instead of serving the needs & interests of the so-called 99 percent

issues, he was diametrically opposed to what the Bush administration had dished out for 8 years; and people, hungry to go in a new direction, believed him, and voted for him.

Apparently, he was just a naive young Senator who didn't understand the need to perpetuate the progress Bush made in the authoritarian police state, and when he got the inside scoop, realized he needed to extend it where he could, and that he had no choice but to continue the War on Terror by whatever means possible - even those that infringe on long-standing rights. If there was a myth, it was that the Constitution means to him what most of us thought it did, and which the constitutional law professor claimed to be well-versed in.

On the other stuff, people believed what they wanted to. They ignored his rhetoric and his record, convinced he was just doing and saying what he needed to to win, and then he would be revealed as a true liberal Democrat. I mean, isn't that why the liberal lion of the Senate, Ted Kennedy, endorsed him? And what he did and said before the campaign, well, that was harder to ignore, but ignore it they did.

And let's not discount the relentless guilt campaign - it would be all our fault if the GOP won, it would be our fault if the Supreme Court went majority conservative. The world as we know it would end, and it would be all our fault.

Well, guess what? That's an argument that packs less punch now than it did three years ago - and now Obama has a record he can't run from.

brazen in your creation of straw men. You -- who says that you don't take "history" into consideration but treat each comment unto itself -- here you are pretending that I/we haven't ever read their comments for myself/ourselves.

Still trying to create the conversation you want to have instead of the one that is actually taking place. If you want that conversation go have it. That's perfectly fine. But if you attach it to my comments, I will continue to be consistent in my responses.

stood for election to win, is not "Community Organizer of the United States of America," or the "Arbitrator of the USA." Or did that change in the last election? If so, I don't remember it being on the ballot.

We don't elect presidents to cater to the interests and agenda of those who opposed him - we vote for a candidate for president because we believe his - or her - vision, philosophy, goals, beliefs are in line with our own. We don't vote for someone to get things done for the sake of checking them off a list, but to get as close as possible to the goals we've said matter to us. And we don't expect the starting place for any negotiation on those things to begin with what the other side wants. This is not known as "ignoring" the 50% who didn't vote for him, but taking a leadership role that will show the skeptics and opponents that his way is the better way, the one that works best for the largest number of people.

I don't know anyone who goes to the polls determined to vote for the candidate who is most likely to end the gridlock in Washington by giving up on the agenda that matters to him or her; we want someone who will take up our fight, and if it has to be incremental, we want those increments to move toward where we believe we need to go, not sideways, or backwards. We want someone who understands that declaring a willingness to settle for middle ground is the same as saying that there's no value in the fight for higher, better ground. If we can't get the touchdown, we want the field goal; we don't want our team to place the ball in the other team's hands and hope we can keep them out of the end zone, and we certainly don't want to settle for being at midfield and told we've won the game.

No one here has expressed disappointment because Obama has not delivered on everything we wanted; this is a much more sanguine crowd than you have ever given us credit for being. At some point, though, the question arises: whose side is this guy on? The answer appears to be, whichever side he thinks he can win over and claim victory, keeping in mind that he does not now, nor did he ever, have at his core an essential belief in liberal Democratic ideals. His comfort zone is one that is much more to the right, much more authoritarian and much more judgmental.

I'm as aware as anyone that Republicans are not the answer this country needs. But I'm equally aware that Obama is not the opposite of what's being offered on the GOP side - he's just a kinder, gentler and possibly saner version. That may be enough contrast for you, but it isn't enough for me, and we aren't going to get closer to getting that contrast until we stop engaging in the practice of voting for the least bad choice.

Brief recap: The least corrupt/best countries appear to be New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Singapore, & Norway. All are in the 9.4 to 9.0 range. The worst were found to be Somalia, N.Korea, Afghanistan, most of the "stans" (with Kazakhstan at @2.7), Chad, Congo, etc.; then, Russia, Mexico, former SSRs.

Ranking fairly high--good level between 7.0 and @7.8--are the UNITED STATES, France, Great Britain, Ireland.

Obviously, it is not mathematical. But, the report (which I read thru a link at HuffPo the other day) is well-known in the international community. Looks at things like transparency, bribes, attitudinal surveys in the countries, etc.

is that you thought that by agreeing with BTD you would by extension and of necessity have everyone else here agreeing with you.

You made the common authoritarian personality mistake of thinking that BTD is an opinion maker that everyone else here would agree with just because he is BTD, and you tried to ride on that.

What you failed to understand however, is that although BTD has strong very well thought out opinions that he is respected for having and will argue for very well, he also is above expecting people to agree with him just because he is BTD.

He expects people to think for themselves. And he has little respect for or patience with people who will not do so.

on a platform of healthcare and education available to all children, rational drug laws that turn their "criminal" fathers into legitimate businessmen overnight, pardons up the wazoo for the "criminals" snared with tyrannical nonsensical laws that return mothers and fathers to their children...well then my friend, we deserve Newt.

but it could happen man. I don't want to throw up my arms and say "we deserve" anything, because there are a lot of deluded Fox News watchers out there and if their stupidity screws up the country, I have to suffer.

Brand D, Brand R...either way I'm a criminal, Wall St. and the banks get their license to steal renewed, we have troops in over 90 countries, the middle class continues to evaporate...I'll vote for an also-ran who fights the good fight and loses. The end result is the same but at least I ain't party to it with my vote...just my taxes.

There are those for whom "winning" any way they can is all that matters. For others, integrity still means something -- but there are very few of us, it seems. "Winning ugly" seems to be the reigning goal.

be hard to the right of Reagan to beat this clown?
Look, the 40 hour work week was literally a Communist idea in the 19th Century.
Looking backwards towards what has been possible will never lead to human progress.
If Gingrich is the candidate, Obama should promise a Mars mission, a Venus mission, and global peace on THREE worlds, as well as a solution to the problem of global cooling and aridification on Mars, and global warming on Venus.

Politically speaking: Sometimes a win is paramount, other times the taking-a-noncompromising-stand--and possibly going down--may be the better avenue. And, still other times may involve a weighing of the risks of winning & losing & the possible gains the next time around (a series of bridge hands & other assorted games can be like that.)

I would think that it isn't an absolute matter. (Surely, politics is more relativistic than religion.) Knowing the goal, the standard(s) by which to measure, what is needed now & what can be deferred...at a minimum, wouldn't that kind of reasoning make sense?!?

inalienable rights are absolute matters...I can not "eat those peas" christine. And I won't...my horse will lose, I know, but I will have no regrets under Pres. Gingrich or Pres. Obama....cuz I voted in favor of habeas corpus and inalienable rights.

come around? When they know obstructing progress will cost them the election. As long the "yeah we s*ck but look at the GOP" thing works to secure votes like yours and mine, where is the incentive for real positive change?

Sh*t I may be so bold as to argue if progress is what we seek, we'd be better off long-term with a GOP congress and executive for 8-12 years...this place would be ripe for some progress then.

to the Bill of Rights, my brother. I cling to it, too. Maybe this is why I have been a 20+ year member of the ACLU. It's not bitterness, it's a realization that our freedoms are being taken away, little by little by little. The Democrats and the Republicans seem to both be willing to shred the Constitution.

at issue polls? They don't back up what you're saying and if you truly believe this then you should start advocating for Romney.

What I think you don't understand is that it's not 1980 anymore and the cold war is over. There are voters who weren't even born when Reagan was elected President, lots of them as a matter of fact. The GOP is not the same GOP it was 30 or even 20 years ago. You have leading candidates advocating for child labor. They have become beyond hideous but yet, people like you are willing to let them set the agenda because you're not brave enough to actually take a stand. When you're a smidge to the left of crazy, what good is that? I see nothing helpful in that.

the core, mainstream Democratic/liberal agenda -- including some items that are favored across the board, such as protecting Social Security -- is now a "hard progressive agenda," according to the fauxgressives

There are voters who weren't even born when Reagan was elected President, lots of them as a matter of fact. The GOP is not the same GOP it was 30 or even 20 years ago. You have leading candidates advocating for child labor.

Is there a good reason why Democrats don't make this point more often?

do you think more gets done if we have 57 decent Democratic Senators instead of 60, with three very Blue Dogs? I think you could argue that the health care bill for example would have been bolder if Democrats and the WH had faced the necessity of using reconciliation earlier. You can also argue that other bills would have been more difficult to pass. (This hypothetical assumes we have a strongly Democratic House, as we did in 2009-10).

That said, I supported Mike McIntyre in the midterms, not because he is a great candidate, but because his opponent (Ilario Pantano) was HORRIBLE and had the potential to be a GOP celebrity.

The ACA passed through reconciliation. The stimulus needed GOP votes to pass. These aren't "moral" victories. These are bills that passed without 60 Democratic Senators. Showing that it is possible to make things happen without 60 Democratic Senators.

I think it's just a strategy question - if you don't have 60 Democratic Senators, do you challenge the GOP to actually filibuster? Etc.

you have been continually telling us how Obama can't do this or that because of those three senators so what good are they? If they are the ones holding everything hostage because they want bad policy what good is it?

because we are able to get a boat load of stuff done outside of the flashpoint issues. They aren't politically capable of filibustering everything, so effective progressive policy can be materially advanced incrementally.

No one ever said that Obama was completely powerless. That's a straw man. The point is that on landmark legislation like ACA, his powers are limited politically. He can only do so much.

But he can still get Lily Ledbetter and DADT repeal and a bunch of other stuff through.

You pretend that that is irrelevant. It is very relevant. Those incremental pieces of legislation are how we move everything left.

of those things just doesn't cut it when Obama has done such a poor job on the economy. He was literally forced to get rid of DADT by activists. Left to his own devices, he would have done nothing. Kirsten Gillibrand showed way more leadership on that issue than Obama did.

When you have high unemployment, Lilly Ledbetter really makes no difference unfortunately. No one is going to actually use the act because they are so desperate for a job right now they are probably just going to sit there and take it.

Obama had an opportunity to do more than "incremental" but he blew it.

(a) Not all of us believe he has done a poor job on the economy. That's your opinion. That is not fact.

(b) I believe that we would have high employment right now regardless of who was in office. The most progressive policy projections under a super progressive president have employment being 1-1.5% lower if we adopted a stimulus that was double in size, for example.

What you are saying is that if employment was at 7.1%, then the other stuff would make a difference but because it is at 8.6% it doesn't.

It's been "8.6%" for four days. And the report included that big fat downer that 315,000 left the labor force. Plus all the people who are underemployed, making cr*p wages far below what they need to support themselves and their families. And then there are the ever-rising health care premiums and prescription co-pays. And the still depressed housing market.

You should stick to the "Got rid of DADT/passed Lliy Ledbetter" argument. It's weak, but still better than "the economy is improving, really!" Cuz those of us who live in the real world know the truth. We're living it every day.

clearly. As is obviously the case, there is a big difference between "the economy is good" and "the economy is improving" that is lost in the need to one up each other with how bad we know the economy is and how much we need to sympathize with those struggling.

It's completely possible to be as sympathetic as any person can be to the plight of those struggling and also believe that things are better this month than they were last month and better this month than they were the month before that. Etc.

The idea that you can't say that things are getting better without crapping on those who are suffering is silly.

It is you who can't see the reality of what is happening with the economy -- the REAL economy -- because you are living in the 1% Wall Street world, where you have everything you need, and those silly people without jobs deserve little more than your detached dose of pity.

I don't base my opinions on the newest statistic. It's meaningless. I know what's happening in the real world. You do not. Your entire raison d'etre on this blog is to shill for Obama. Every day you write exactly the same posts, expecting to get different responses. As I recall, that is the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting new outcomes. Such a waste of time.

is how everything moved to the right. So conceptually it could work. But in order to do that, what they proposed far exceeded what they hoped to accomplish in the end. And then another outrageous demand was made. And a little more ground was given.

Until here we are.

Compromising before proposing is not how the nation got re-coopted by the robber barons. Well, actually it's partly that, but the compromising has been done by the so-called left.

"Democrats would pay for the costs by proposing cuts to non-health mandatory programs that were under consideration for reductions by the congressional supercommittee. And they will call for a temporary surtax on millionaires, rather than a permanent one, and will scale back the 3.25 percent surtax that was part of last week's plan.

Democrats say will also call for means testing for certain government benefits, like unemployment insurance and food stamps, to ensure affluent individuals no longer receive compensation from the government."

That's a fair compromise I think. That gives both sides something after the proposal we submitted was rejected.

Is that a bad proposal in your eyes? If it is, I don't understand how you think something more progressive is going to pass. What is your suggested tactic?

Colorado farmers are upset with the Obama Administration over a proposal to change child labor laws for kids under the age of 18 who work in agriculture; a move that's stemmed from several high-profile accidents involving kids on farms around the country.

One of the more contentious rules would prevent children under the age of 15 from working anywhere but their parents' farm. Another would ban those under 18 from entering grain elevators and even livestock auctions.

Troy Marshall, a cattle rancher near Burlington on the Colorado-Kansas line, says the changes would make it virtually impossible for him to hire anyone under the age of 18.

I probably would not have been allowed to have the job I had at 13 as a pin setter in a bowling alley either? Or cut my neighbors lawns? Or shovel their driveways? Or babysit their kids?

OK, so we have the full language now of the compromise measure for the payroll tax cut, and there are basically three components to the pay-for for the legislation, which now only increases and extends the employee side of the tax cut (a total of a 3.1% tax cut, which functions as a 3.1% wage increase up to the $106,000 in salary affected by the payroll tax) and costs around $185 billion for 2012.

The legislation would increase fees that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac charge to guarantee loans. This proposal was in the President's deficit plan from September and also part of the Super Committee negotiations, apparently. This pay-for will raise $39.1 billion, and entirely from mortgage originators who sell their loans to Fannie and Freddie. It's over a ten-year timeline and the increase cannot be more than 12.5 basis points (.125%) every year, so it's not onerous. Increasing fees is seen as a way to wean the market off of Fannie and Freddie, and as Pat Toomey said, this would come closer to an actual market rate for the guarantees Fannie and Freddie provide.

The legislation would include the proposal in last week's Republican legislation to make millionaires ineligible for food stamps and unemployment insurance. I don't know if it stops millionaires from sleeping under bridges, either. Hilariously, Bob Casey, who announced this proposal, didn't even bother to score it in his press release, presumably because the approximate savings from stopping millionaires to access food stamps and unemployment benefits would be around $0.00. Maybe Tom Coburn will tell me different. I'd love to see a CBO score.

The legislation continues to have a surtax on the aforementioned millionaires, but because of the changes, this surtax is reduced to 1.9%. It would also sunset after ten years, so the surtax would only pay for this legislation and that's it. It would start in 2013, so there would be no cost next year, when the payroll tax cut would be in operation.

I really meant to double-check ABG's representation, but was really busy at work today.

It all may be irrelevant, as this latest plan probably isn't going to pass anyway - but I'm still struggling with the cavalier way in which ABG accepted, as a middle ground position that represented a "give" toward the other side, that it would be acceptable to means-test these benefits.

Guess that will teach us to accept at face value anything he presents here; I really should know better, at this point.

ineligible for food stamps by the sheer fact they are millionaires? It's my understanding you can't have more than x-amount of dollars in your account to qualify. They may also be ineligible for UE because of incoming income from 'other' places.

are entirely different. Workers don't take deductions from their compensation -- repeat, their compensation -- for food stamps. They pay taxes for food stamps to help others, sure, but they pay workers' comp for themselves.

Or, also look at all of us who are exempt from paying workers' comp -- but also are exempt from ever filing for it. However, we still pay taxes for welfare programs.

It's so aggravating to see so many misunderstandings about workers' comp being welfare.

comment, Donald. The lack of understanding of the concept of insurance is just stunning, again and again. Unemployment comp is insurance, into which workers paid, just as Social Security is insurance, into which workers paid as part of their overall compensation -- even if employers are ordered to input the payments, but the payments still are part of workers' compensation that otherwise would come in salary or wages. Myself, having seen the stupidity about all this, I would rather just take the salary, but I can be trusted to bank it for the rainy/retirement day.

I'm already seeing so much fast-and-loose played by states denying workers their unemployment comp that I -- and they -- would not at all trust any tampering with it, such as "means testing."

Seriously, we all know that there are times whengetting out in front is the right thing to do...the question is how far? Because we also all know if the leader gets too far out front, he/she will turn around to find the would-be contituents following someone else...and the leader will not be the leader.

I do think that ABG has a good point in trying to focus on areal/individual components...it brings it back to earth, to the table. From you earlier position, I'm confident that you know that people can be complex about what they say publicly and what they relate to in less public areas. (E.g., "bipartisanship" or--maybe relevant--behaviors, religions, etc.) It is a dilemma, isn't it...that democracy thing of how "strong" the leader should be? (And, it is more than philosophical.) The old strong, but not arrogant. Populist, but not demagogic. Trusting voters, yet telling them to not believe what they believe (rightly or wrongly.)

While we vote based on the measure of the man or woman...sometimes in getting to that vote, it is nice (even helpful) to talk about particular issues, seriatim, and see where we are with each of them. Individually; and, as a group. The rest is bravado; fun...but bravado.

Which of those positions are you recommending we embrace? And if I'm again missing your point (which is likely because several readings of your second paragraph bring me no closer to understanding it) I would welcome clarification.

from commenter Dalllasdoc: " The way to elect Democrats is to elect better Democrats. The Democratic brand has been so comprehensively diluted in recent decades as to be all but meaningless. The tent is so big a lot of voters no longer remember what the purpose of the tent is supposed to be. Lifelong Democrats generally identify with SS, MC, Civil Rights Act and all the other great achievements of the party. Those great achievements are getting increasingly historical and more recent party achievements are minuscule beside them. The party's brand has not been defended and maintained and voters are increasingly forgetting what Democrats are supposed to stand for......
Economic populism enjoys broad and deep support in the population at large, as do most issues of social justice. A Democratic Party that vigorously and uniformly embraced those issues and fought as hard for them as Republicans fight for billionaires and Christianist bigots would, I submit, be a far more effective party than today's..."

& if you actually read it all the way though, it's not clear that you understood it

for example, you say you "hit a snag" with this statement from BTD:

I firmly believe that Democrats win more elections when they embrace core progressive values.

but almost immediately afterward, BTD also says this:

Electing non-progressive Democrats will not make the Democratic Party more progressive. It will keep the country from becoming more conservative. And as such, it is something to be in favor of.

& that statement from BTD lines up somewhat with this one from you:

we should be careful to create a safe place in the party for those who cannot win with a hard progressive agenda

but the difference between BTD & you is that BTD is a centrist arguing in favor of electing greater numbers of progressive Democrats, with the understanding that if Nebraska cannot elect progressive Democrats for now, it's up to progressives in Nebraska to change that

whereas you give no reason for advocating the creation of "a safe place in the party for those who cannot win with a hard progressive agenda," & you never define the term "hard progressive agenda"

all the rest of your comments in this thread, & especially your responses to others' comments, give the strong impression that you define a "hard progressive agenda" as anything to the left of whatever it is that Obama has done, period

you are not using the "same logic" as BTD, if only because BTD is actually using logic

Here in California, police officers often ask passengers for identification during a routine traffic stop.

DO NOT GIVE IT TO THEM.

They are only entitled to that information for the purposes of enforcing the Vehicle Code. If your seat belt is in place, they have no reason to identify you. There is no legitimate law enforcement purpose served by collecting information on the lawful behavior of law abiding citizens.

If they ask, be polite in your refusal, but make them tell you for what purpose they want that information.

TalkLeft can't give legal advice, so anyone reading this should take the above as Repack's opinion but not legal advice.

See the Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004). It held the mere asking for identification did not violate the 4th Amendment.

Decision would only have application in states where there is a statutory requirement that person(s) identify themselves during an investigative detention.

The request for identity must be supported by a valid Terry stop.

If it's a valid Terry stop and state law allows, the officer may request that the person(s) identify themselves. But it does not allow arrest based on a failure to produce "credible and reliable" identification.

The Supreme Court in Hibbel cited these states, which like Nevada, allow requests for id: The Court noted the following states as having statutes similar to Nevada:

identifying yourself only means stating your name. There is no requirement to produce any documents. Hiibel had refused to so much as give his name to the officer who detained him. There is no requirement that I'm aware of that requires any passenger anywhere to possess identification documents. I think that was settled in Kolender v. Lawson in San Diego, CA. I lived in San Diego at the time of that case and remember following it.

...who is not charged with a Vehicle Code violation and is not a witness is not required to identify himself.

They can ASK you anything. And they do, because fishing expeditions are what these "requests" are all about. They can ask you to give up your Fourth Amendment rights, and if you surrender your rights by complying "voluntarily," that is on YOU, not them.

What they plan to do with the info is run a warrant check, even though riding in the passenger seat is not evidence of an outstanding warrant.

You are under no compulsion to comply with an unreasonable request. Even though I have never been arrested in 66 years, and do not have any warrants, I do not permit police to make a record of my lawful activity.

in so many layers that I can hardly move. In the four block walk home from the bus stop on Thursday, it was so slick I nearly slipped and fell on my arse at least 10 times even though I was walking like a penguin!

Enjoy the nice weather while you can, ya'll will get yours sooner or later!

Maybe you need to get some of those non-slip traction things that you can slip over the soles of your shoes. Be very, very careful- Mr. Zorba once slipped and fell on the ice, and busted up the bones in his hand so badly, he needed to have surgery to plate them back together. Could have been worse, I guess- he could have busted up his head, or his back.

Looks like it was a good show from the review Steve linked to on FB. Too bad you had to miss it! Would be nice if they came out this way.

Oh, I hope she doesn't hunt you down and pepper spray you or something. :0

Elway has been out scouting QB's pretty hard, so I'd be surprised if we don't draft a QB in the early rounds with only Timmay and Weber on the roster next year. Tebow may be holding a clipboard soon--especially if they get someone like RGIII or Matt Barkley to compete with him. Here's hoping.

Air Train all wearing the same black tee shirt with chartreuse graphic and lettering. One guy was wearing XXXXLLLLL, the others had jackets over their smallish shirts. Must have been a concert shirt. But what?

like others in academia who decry as "ideological" & "politically correct" the avowed effort to expand literary/artistic canons beyond the approved roster of white males, & who also fail to appreciate their own resistance to such expansion as itself representative of a conservative ideology

as I am, last night's episode treated you to superb television programming on just about every front--production, writing, acting, and storytelling. The flashback-heavy program was done very well--a back and forth seamlessly and creatively effected. The next episode is the last of this season--and we can anticipate huge surprises.

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration will begin considering how countries treat gay and lesbian citizens when making decisions about allocating foreign aid, an official familiar with the decision says.

The White House is expected to issue a presidential memorandum announcing the change Tuesday morning. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will follow up the announcement with a speech in Geneva later in the day.

The presidential memorandum is the first U.S. government strategy to deal with human rights abuses against gays and lesbians abroad."

"The Washington Post reports that, under President Obama and his Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the Food and Drug Administration is considering letting "anyone of any age buy the controversial morning-after pill Plan B directly off drugstore and supermarket shelves without a prescription.""